Jump to content

Israeli Forces attack Aid Flotilla to Gaza


WhiteHaven

Recommended Posts

Samalander's assertion that the peaceful Israeli soldiers boarded the boats peacefully because they were expected a bunch of hippies with flowers in their hair is interesting, because it doesn't explain why they rappalled onto the boat from helicopters (the fastest transport possible) under cover of night. If they were not expecting resistance, they could have boarded the ships by daylight a few hours later after they had actually reached the blockade line, and turned the ships back with far greater legal authority.

Because landing via helicopters is the simplest practical way of boarding a hostile (not nesseceraly violent) boat. Why at night? Because during daylight its much easyer to post sensational pictures and the IDF wanted to ruin their party. Evidentely, things went terribly wrong from that point.

Not only that, but videos from the boat itself shown on the BBC show the people on the boat observing the helicopter coming closer for several minutes before the attack, plenty of time to grab implements to hands to repel the boarders.

With knives and steel batons, stabbing the soldiers (armed with paintball guns) repeatedly? Quite a defence, especially from the same people who, earlyer on the boat, chanted anti-Jewish muslim battle chants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect they just wanted to minimise the opportunity for not particularly media friendly shots of Israeli soldiers storming an aid ship.

Yeah, that turned out well :P

I don't think it's reasonable at this stage to say that either the organisers of the flotilla or Israel planned for any violent clashes.

Israel sent soldiers to board the ships. You don't send soldiers unless you are prepared for the fact that things might end up turning violent. There is no doubt in my mind that Israel desired a peaceful resolution, but what you desire and what you prepare for are two very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel sent soldiers to board the ships. You don't send soldiers unless you are prepared for the fact that things might end up turning violent.

Like I said, sending police forces, trained in riot conrol and situations such as these is entirely illegal. Hence, the only "prepared" forces we had, we could not use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't understand this whole argument of "well the commandos went in armed only with paint ball guns (and pistols) whereas the crew members had slingshots and batons".

What could possibly be the point of arming your special forces soldiers with paintball guns? These troops are trained to kill, not for riot control (as previously mentioned). What is the advantage of giving them not only non-lethal weaponry, but non-lethal weaponry that looks lethal.

It's not like they're carrying shotguns with rubber bullets. That would potentially be useful because they could be used to subdue a crowd. Not that rubber bullets can't be dangerous, and that even when used deflecting off a surface haven't been known to cause serious injury, but having your options be paintball or live rounds just seems absurd.

So I don't understand this "we came peacefully to board this ship and they attacked us, how weird is that" argument.

The idea that special forces troops were coming in peace, in the middle of the night, rappelling down onto the ship... I mean seriously.

This isn't to excuse the fact that yes, the flotilla was an attempt to cause an confrontation. One can argue whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do in order to bring the world's attention to what some will term the plight of the people of Gaza. And others will say that such actions are entirely counter-productive because they just polarize both sides even further and prevent any meaningful movement in terms of actual peaceful settlement of the issues.

But this seems to have been a pretty serious fuckup by the IDF, any way you look at it. If the flotilla was an attempt to get attention and make Israel look bad, then the Israelis did an awesome job of playing the part scripted for them. Surely they would have done better had they tried to improvise their lines a bit, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What could possibly be the point of arming your special forces soldiers with paintball guns? These troops are trained to kill, not for riot control (as previously mentioned). What is the advantage of giving them not only non-lethal weaponry, but non-lethal weaponry that looks lethal.

I guess they thought they would encounter some shoving, cursing, yelling. In this situation, aiming/shooting someone with a paintball gun might make them calm down. The advantage in scenario: nobody gets hurt.

Of course, the problem is, this is not the scenario that unfolded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shooting people will a paintball gun will calm people down? Really? Really?

That's pretty fucking wishful thinking right there.

But I suppose the IDF is known for its general pacifist tendencies, particularly among its special forces. True fact: Sayeret Matkal actually carry teddy bears instead of extra ammo clips.

For fuck's sake, people. Paintball guns were a poor tactical decision. If you want to go with non-lethal force, great. If you want to go with lethal force, ok. But going with non-lethal force that looks lethal is just plain stupid.

Quite frankly, the IDF should have known better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they thought they would encounter some shoving, cursing, yelling. In this situation, aiming/shooting someone with a paintball gun might make them calm down. The advantage in scenario: nobody gets hurt.

Of course, the problem is, this is not the scenario that unfolded.

Honestly, what the commandos seem to be using in the videos is, while less lethal pretty far from your standard paintball gun. And it's more than a bit disingenious to call it a paintball gun.

Meet the FN 303.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, what the commandos seem to be using in the videos is, while less lethal pretty far from your standard paintball gun. And it's more than a bit disingenious to call it a paintball gun.

Meet the FN 303.

According to your page Israel is not one of its users (US, ?Luxemburg? and Libya) so I don't see how it could be what they used

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to your page Israel is not one of its users (US, ?Luxemburg? and Libya) so I don't see how it could be what they used

Of course it's possible that I'm mistaken. But I don't know if you can rely on wikipedia to maintain a complete and up to date list about exactly who uses the FN 303.

I just linked to the page to show that what they appear to be using is a dedicated riot-gun, not your standard paintball gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew that damn terrorist was on board!!!

http://www.israel-palestinenews.org/2010/06/israel-to-deport-former-jerusalem.html

This is NOT a sweet old guy:

http://www.shabak.gov.il/english/history/affairs/pages/capuchicase.aspx

And that's just the named man...

P.S

Just saw Jonathan Mann on CNN trying to get a straight answer from some legal expert on the legality of Israel's operation in international water. He failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/un-condemns-israel-assault-gaza-flotilla

The UN security council has called for an impartial investigation into Israel's botched assault on a flotilla carrying aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of an outright condemnation of the attack.

In a carefully worded compromise statement drafted after ten hours of debate, the security council also called for the immediate release of hundreds of civilians held after the raid.

Guess the US didn't care to stop all of this one. Just the condemnation part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A live coverage thing with quick news updates here (from Al-Jezeera): http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/05/31/live-coverage-aftermath-israels-flotilla-raid

The interesting one:

11:27am: Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has reopened the Rafah crossing into Gaza for medical and humanitarian cases. And he didn't announce a date when it would be closed again (normally the crossing is only opened for several days at a time).

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2010/06/20106193546785656.html

I was filming, and then he [an Israeli solider] ran after me with a stun gun.

He could not catch me. One of his colleagues hit my hand from behind with a stun gun. My camera fell down. He ran to crush the camera with his feet.

I told him, don't break my camera. If you want the tapes, I will give them to you. I told him these are media equipment. They had no limits.

They used rubber bullets. They used tear gas bombs. It was an unbelievable scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More eye witness accounts: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

Cetin is among a handful of Turkish activists to be released; more than 300 remain in Israeli custody. She said she agreed to extradition from Israel after she was warned that conditions in jail would be too harsh for her child.

"I am one of the first passengers to be sent home, just because I have baby. When we arrived at the Israeli port of Ashdod we were met by the Israeli interior and foreign ministry officials and police; there were no soldiers. They asked me only a few questions. But they took everything – cameras, laptops, cellphones, personal belongings including our clothes," she said.

Kutlu Tiryaki was a captain of another vessel in the flotilla. "We continuously told them we did not have weapons, we came here to bring humanitarian help and not to fight," he said.

"The attack on the Mavi Marmara came in an instant: they attacked it with 12 or 13 attack boats and also with commandos from helicopters. We heard the gunshots over our portable radio handsets, which we used to communicate with the Mavi Marmara, because our ship communication system was disrupted. There were three or four helicopters also used in the attack. We were told by Mavi Marmara their crew and civilians were being shot at and windows and doors were being broken by Israelis."

Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."

Grigoropoulos, who insisted the ship was full of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza "and nothing more", said that, once detained, the human rights activists were not allowed to contact a lawyer or the Greek embassy in Tel Aviv. "They didn't let us go to the toilet, eat or drink water and throughout they videoed us. They confiscated everything, mobile phones, laptops, cameras and personal effects. They only allowed us to keep our papers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for those who were wondering about legality:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

Craig Murray is a human rights activist, writer,

former British Ambassador, and an Honorary Research

Fellow at the University of Lancaster School of Law.

A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place

on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-ministers-likely-to-demand-probe-of-gaza-flotilla-raid-1.293586

Members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political-security cabinet were expected Tuesday to demand that a panel of inquiry be established to investigate how and why the decision was made to carry out a commando raid on a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.

Senior ministers have been sharply critical of the fact that the decision to seize control of the flotilla to Gaza was made after two meetings of the forum of seven senior ministers but without official deliberation by the inner cabinet, the body that has the authority to approve military actions of this scale.

I found the sensible guy:

One of the most vocal participants in Wednesday's session was Cabinet Secretary Zvi Hauser.

He was against the raid and said the ships should be allowed to dock in Gaza in order to avoid a diplomatic and public relations crisis as well as the embarrassment to Israel that a violent confrontation with demonstrators on the ships could cause. After senior defense officials expressed their opposition to Hauser's views, his position was rejected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for those who were wondering about legality:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

Yeah, well, that's what you would call the law of free passage under normal circumstances or somesuch.

However, we maintain a militiry conflict is in effect with Hamas and thus we have established a legitimate blockade. Any neutral party trying to run a military blockade can be boarded and insepcted in international waters.

Let me try to cut to the chase (and I'm not an expert on these things, Yoadm is the guy to talk to, but I did watch CNN today) - there are two conflicting sets of rules: the one for normal circumstances and the one for when a country is asserting it's right to self-defense under military conditions.

If one believes our blockade on Gaza is legitimate than we are allowed to take action to maintain it even in international waters.

If one believe our blockade on Gaza is unlawful, then we broke international law by stopping those ships.

And since this is never going to come before a judge, it all depends on where you stand, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the sensible guy:

One of the most vocal participants in Wednesday's session was Cabinet Secretary Zvi Hauser.

He was against the raid and said the ships should be allowed to dock in Gaza in order to avoid a diplomatic and public relations crisis

My understanding is that the continuing legality of the blockade as whole would be in question if they let those ships through, because one of the conditions for a lawful blockade is that it is enforced. The fact that Egypt also was a declared party to the blockade suggests there was pretty good reason for the blockade in the first place.

I'm still curious as to why Israel did it in international waters. Maybe a declared intent to run the blockade makes that ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still curious as to why Israel did it in international waters. Maybe a declared intent to run the blockade makes that ok?

a. Yes, intent to run the blockade is enough, especially since we warned them off repeatedly.

b. Night-time was decided as the best time for the operation. By morning, they would have been inside Israel's territorial waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...